DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument regarding that Gahres does not describe the step in claim 1, wherein a relation between: a) a tilt position and/or a lift position of the header; and b) a ground reaction force is determined is not persuasive. Gahres discloses that the header's ground force is compared to the desired ground force at different points in time (fig. 5). Each of these different times would be a header position which is what is affecting the ground force, so the header position is intrinsically accounted for.
Applicant’s argument regarding that Gahres does not disclose the change of the tilt and/or lift position of the header in response to an operating condition requirement recited in claim 1 is unpersuasive. Gahres recites "[0050] The control system 400 also may be configured to allow the operator to adjust the predetermined target ground reaction force, based on operating conditions or other factors." While these operating conditions (header weight and oil temperature, [0045]) may not be the operating conditions that the current application intends (cutting position or the cutting of particular crops), "operating conditions" are not specifically defined or limited in the claim. Additionally, the operating conditions in Miller are also broad and so also meet the claim limitations.
Applicant’s argument that the tilt of Miller is about the longitudinal axis, not a pivot axis running transverse to the vehicle’s fore-aft axis, is not persuasive. The angle of the header is changed compared to the header about axis 105 in the direction indicated by 109 (fig. 1, par. 0022 of Miller). This is the same as in the current application.
The 112 (b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gahres et al. (US 2022/0053693 A1), hereinafter Gahres.
Regarding claim 1, Gahres discloses a method of operating a header float control system (400, fig. 4, par. 0041) of an agricultural vehicle (100, fig. 1, par. 0034) having a header (108, fig. 1, par. 0034) movably mounted to a chassis (102, fig. 1, par. 0007 and 0034), the method comprising:
determining for the header a relation between:
a tilt position and/or a lift position of the header, and
a ground reaction force between the header and a ground surface in contact with the header (par. 0007, 0034, 0039, and 0045-0048);
setting a desired ground reaction force between the header and the ground surface in contact with the header (par. 0010 and 0049-0052);
changing the tilt and/or the lift position of the header (par. 0001, 0052, 0055 and 0061-0062, wherein the actuators are set to raise and lower the header such as in par. 0061-0062; additionally, “adjusts one or more operating parameters” contemplates tilting such as in par. 0001) in response to an operating condition requirement (fig. 5, par. 0045-0055); and
adjusting a lift pressure of the header according to the relation between the tilt and/or the lift position of the header and the ground reaction force to maintain the desired ground reaction force (par. 0055 and 0058-0064).
Regarding claim 2, Gahres further discloses wherein determining the relation between the tilt and/or the lift position of the header and the ground reaction force comprises measuring the ground reaction force between the header and the ground surface at one or more tilt and/or the lift positions of the header (par. 0045-0048).
Regarding claim 3, Gahres further discloses wherein setting the desired ground reaction force comprises receiving a selection of an adjustable value for the desired ground reaction force (par. 0049-0051).
Regarding claim 4, Gahres further discloses wherein the adjustable value for the desired ground reaction force comprises an operating pressure of a hydraulic actuator that controls the lift position of the header (par. 0058-0064).
Regarding claim 5, Gahres further discloses wherein changing the tilt and/or the lift position of the header comprises receiving a selection of an adjustable value for the tilt and/or the lift position of the header (par. 0049-0051).
Regarding claim 6, Gahres further discloses wherein adjusting the lift pressure of the header (par. 0055 and 0058-0064) to maintain the desired ground reaction force (par. 0055) comprises adjusting an operating pressure of a hydraulic actuator that controls the lift position of the header relative to the chassis (par. 0058-0064).
Regarding claim 7, Gahres further discloses wherein adjusting the operating pressure of the hydraulic actuator that controls the lift position of the header relative to the chassis comprises changing an output pressure of a pressure reducing valve operatively connected to the hydraulic actuator that controls the lift position of the header relative to the chassis (610, fig. 7, par. 0058-0064, wherein 610 reduces the pressure and lowers the header, see also 604 that raises the header, 600 as a system raises and lowers the header).
Regarding claim 13, Gahres further discloses wherein the tilt is changed by rotating the header about an axis (105, fig. 1, par. 0022) that is transverse to a fore-aft axis of the agricultural vehicle (fig. 1, wherein the axis goes into the page of the figure so that the axis is transverse to a fore-aft axis).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gahres et al. (US 2022/0053693 A1), hereinafter Gahres in view of Miller et al. (US 20200077584 A1), hereinafter Miller.
Regarding claim 8, Gahres discloses an agricultural vehicle (100, fig. 1, par. 0034) comprising:
a chassis (102, fig. 1, par. 0007 and 0034);
a header (108, fig. 1, par. 0034) movably mounted to the chassis (102, fig. 1, par. 0007 and 0034) by one or more lift arms (110, fig. 1-3, par. 0034-0035), the one or more lift arms adjusting a lift position of the header relative to the chassis actuated by one or more lift position hydraulic actuators (par. 0034-0035),
a control system (400, fig. 4, par. 0041) operatively connected to the one or more lift position hydraulic actuators (610, fig. 7, par. 0058-0064, wherein 610 reduces the pressure and lowers the header, see also 604 that raises the header, 600 as a system raises and lowers the header) in order to:
determine for the header a relation between;
a tilt and/or a lift position of the header and a ground reaction force between the header, and
a ground surface in contact with the header (par. 0007, 0034, 0039, and 0045-0048);
set a desired ground reaction force between the header and the ground surface in contact with the header (par. 0010 and 0049-0052);
change the tilt and/or the lift position of the header (par. 0052 and 0055) in response to an operating condition requirement (fig. 5, par. 0045-0055); and
adjust a lift pressure of the one or more lift position hydraulic actuators according to the relation between the tilt and/or the lift position of the header and the ground reaction force to maintain the desired ground reaction force (112, par. 0055 and 0058-0064).
Gahres discloses the above, including the general idea of adjusting a position such as tilt (par. 0001 and par. 0034) and different actuators (112, par. 0035 and 0046-0047).
However, Gahres fails to explicitly disclose the header being adjusting a tilt position relative to a ground surface located below the header actuated by one or more tilt position hydraulic actuators; and the control system operatively connected to the tilt actuators.
Miller teaches a similar device in the same field of agricultural vehicles wherein the header is adjusting a tilt position relative to a ground surface located below the header actuated by one or more tilt position hydraulic actuators (par. 0006, 0015, and 0022 of Miller); and the control system operatively connected to the tilt actuators (par. 0024 of Miller).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gahres to simply substitute the generic multiple actuators for specifically tilt actuators, along with the lift actuators, to control a tilt of the header of Miller in order to yield the predictable result of maintaining the header position in areas of uneven terrain (par. 0015 of Miller).
Regarding claim 9, Gahres in view of Miller further teaches wherein the control system (400, fig. 4, par. 0041 of Gahres) comprises a user interface (408, par. 0051 of Gahres) that receives a selection of an adjustable value for the desired ground reaction force (par. 0049-0051 of Gahres).
Regarding claim 10, Gahres in view of Miller further teaches wherein the control system (400, fig. 4, par. 0041 of Gahres) comprises a user interface (408, par. 0051 of Gahres) that receives a selection of an adjustable value for the tilt position and/or the lift position of the header (par. 0049-0052 of Gahres; par. 0024 of Miller).
Regarding claim 11, Gahres in view of Miller further teaches wherein the control system (400, fig. 4, par. 0041 of Gahres) is operatively connected to a pressure reducing valve (610, fig. 7, par. 0058-0064 of Gahres) that adjusts an operating pressure of the one or more lift position hydraulic actuators (112, par. 0051, 0055, and 0058-0064 of Gahres).
Regarding claim 15, Gahres in view of Miller further teaches wherein the tilt is changed by rotating the header about an axis (105, fig. 1, par. 0022) that is transverse to a fore-aft axis of the agricultural vehicle (fig. 1, wherein the axis goes into the page of the figure so that the axis is transverse to a fore-aft axis).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Gahres is considered the closest prior art, but fails to explicitly disclose “changing the tilt and/or the lift position of the header in response to an operating condition requirement (independent claims), wherein the operating condition requirement comprises a change in a crop and/or a change in a crop cutting condition,” this includes elements from the independent claims. While it is known to set the header float prior to harvesting in view of the crop type or the crop cutting conditions, no prior art was found wherein the header float is changed mid harvest in view of the changing crop type or the crop cutting conditions.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer A Railey whose telephone number is (571)270-7353. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-4).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER A RAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/Nicole Coy/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights